2 ms·
> and they had to stop being a non-profit and become for profit, which, at that point, costs $1 million to convert. I presume this is because non-profits must g
by chimeracoder 11y ago
> and they had to stop being a non-profit and become for profit, which, at that point, costs $1 million to convert. I presume this is because non-profits must give away their assets to another non-profit if they cease operations.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If they weren't a non-profit, why would they have to give their assets to a non-profit in order to convert (and why would this cost them $1 million)?
- ProblemFactory 11y agoBesides this, I don't see why they would need to convert their status. There are almost no restrictions on running a non-profit, beyond not having "owners" or paying dividend. The restrictions only apply to non-profits that want to be tax-exempt by the IRS. If you aren't considered charitable enough, then you just pay taxes as usual, but nobody is going to force a shut down of the non-profit because of that.
- protomyth 11y agoThere is some maximums in the law that make non-profit status problematic. I worked for a non-profit that had for-profit parts because they had exceeded some of the limits. I'm pretty sure (although its been almost 20 years) that the problem was number of employees and their salaries.